About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 - 8:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
From the thread:

9/11: Comments on Bidinotto's "It's a Conspiracy"

John Armaos:

Enough of this garbage. Let's not feed this troll anymore as he clearly has a mental illness. This 9/11 conspiracy claptrap only succeeds in demeaning this forum. I would kindly ask the moderators to place this thread and the proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories to the dissent section.


Joseph Rowlands:

Agreed. I've moved him to dissent. I let his last post go through because it speaks volumes for his approach. And hopefully it shows those people who asked reasonable questions that it's an unreasonable topic, and rational debate is not going to make it less reasonable.


So, here in this "Dissent", I write:

As the evidence continue to grow for showing government complicity and coverup in the 9/11 massacre, the believers of the official coverup account, contrary to their claims of being reasonable objectivists, cannot answer the formidable challenge to their beliefs, and, when their insults and intimidation doesn't work, can only turn away and hide from the facts that threaten their dogma and delusion.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 - 9:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The Second Coming

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

-- William Butler Yeats


(Edited by Ted Keer
on 6/20, 9:17am)


Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 - 9:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Monart,

People pointed out obvious issues with some fo the scenarios you suggested. You've said nothing about it. You just keep talking. Now you hurl a few insults about irrationality, dog,ma, and delusion. I say, look in the mirror.

Ethan


Post 3

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 - 9:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


Lest it be thought my quotation of Yeats
(may he forgive the insult)
were in praise of this thread,
this painting of Edvard Munch's should,
I hope, clarify my opinion.

Ted

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Thursday, June 21, 2007 - 9:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here is some interesting stuff on how members of the bin Laden's famly were allowed to leave the country right after 9-11:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2007/Saudi%20Docs%202.pdf


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Thursday, June 21, 2007 - 11:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here is some interesting stuff on how members of the bin Laden's family were allowed to leave the country right after 9-11: (Chris)

Were they supposed to be automatically imprisoned? Executed?

Just to be clear:

Are we talking about the same bin Laden family members who want nothing to do with Osama, denounce him, and are ashamed of what he's done to their family name, which used to carry the same amount of prestige in Saudi Arabia as the name "Kennedy" in the U.S., but now is mainly associated with the most wanted man on the planet?

Or is this about the other bin Laden relatives who were a part of Osama's evil plot, and were allowed to scurry away to safety thanks to the (ever-evolving) Bush administration 911 conspiracy plot?

Doesn't Osama have like, 50-odd brothers and sisters? Are they all guilty of evil?


Post 6

Thursday, June 21, 2007 - 1:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
BLANK OUT BLANK OUT BLANK OUT :-)

Post 7

Thursday, June 21, 2007 - 2:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Monart,

You posted a lot of interesting stuff on the Cornell Objectivism List back in the olden days. Should you like to discuss anything of interest, I'd be happy to try to engage you, if you start another thread. But I'm afraid the only thing I'd have to add to this one would be more jpegs of body parts.

Ted

Post 8

Friday, June 22, 2007 - 11:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Are we talking about the same bin Laden family members who want nothing to do with Osama, denounce him, and are ashamed of what he's done to their family name, which used to carry the same amount of prestige in Saudi Arabia as the name "Kennedy" in the U.S., but now is mainly associated with the most wanted man on the planet?
How do you think Osama bin Laden got his money in the first place? He's never had to work a day in his life. He's just a worthless spoiled brat, like a lot of the Kennedys and Bushes are.

Saad bin Laden has also been accused of being involved in other acts of terrorism. An in-law of bin Laden set up Benevolence International Foundation, which may have funnelled charity money to al-Qaida.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Friday, June 22, 2007 - 10:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"New Study from Pilots for 9/11 Truth: No Boeing 757 Hit the Pentagon"

By Jim Fetzer

June 21, 2007

A study of the black box data provided by the government to Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed the previous findings of Scholars for 9/11 Truth that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11. "We have had four lines of proof that no Boeing 757 hit the building," said James Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. "This new study by Pilots drives another nail into a coffin of lies told the American people by The 9/11 Commission".

The new society, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) under the Freedom of Information Act and obtained its 2002 report on American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757 that, according to the official account, hit the ground floor of the Pentagon after it skimmed over the lawn at 500 mph plus, taking out a series of lamp posts in the process. The pilots not only obtained the flight data but created a computer animation to demonstrate what it told them.

According to the report issued by Pilots for 9/11 Truth (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/), there are major differences between the official account and the flight data:

a. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events.

b. All altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.

c. The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense "5 Frames" video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn.

d. The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time.

e. If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon.

As Robert Balsamo, co-founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, observes, "The information in the NSTB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001." The study was signed by fifteen professional pilots with extensive military and commercial carrier experience. They have made their animation, "Pandora's Box: Chapter 2," available to the public at http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Pandora's+Black+Box%3A+Chapter+2 .

According to James H. Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (http://911scholars.org), this result fits into the broader picture of what happened at the Pentagon that day. "We have developed four lines of argument that prove--conclusively, in my judgment--that no Boeing 757 hit the building. The most important evidence to the contrary has been the numerous eyewitness reports of a large commercial carrier coming toward the building. If the NTSB data is correct, then the Pilot's study shows that a large aircraft headed toward the building but did not impact with it. It swerved off and flew above the Pentagon."

Fetzer, who retired last June after 35 years of teaching courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, expressed pleasure over the Pilot's results, which, he said, has neatly resolved the most pressing issue that remained about the Pentagon. He added, "We have previously developed several lines of argument, each of which proves that no Boeing 757 hit the building," including these four:

(1) The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: there were no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Not even the engines were recovered, and they are practically indestructible.

(2) Of an estimate 84 videotapes of the crash, the three that have been released by the Pentagon do not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O'Reilly admitted when one was shown on "The Factor". At 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 77-foot Pentagon is high and should have been visible. There are indications of a much smaller plane, but not a Boeing 757.

(3) Indeed, the aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory--flying more than 500 mph barely above ground level--physically impossible, because of the accumulation of a massive pocket of compressed gas (air) beneath the fuselage; and if it had come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the official trajectory is impossible.

(4) Flying low enough to impact with the ground floor would have meant that the enormous engines were plowing the ground and creating massive furrows; but there are no massive furrows. The smooth, unblemished surface of the Pentagon lawn thus stands as a "smoking gun" proving the official trajectory cannot be sustained.

Members of Scholars have contributed to a new book that analyses the government's official account, according to which 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacked four commercial airliners, outfoxed the most sophisticated air-defense system in the world, and committed these atrocities under the control of a man in a cave in Afghanistan. Entitled, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), it includes photographs of the hit point before and after the upper floors collapsed, the crucial frame from the released videos, and views of the clear, smooth, and unblemished lawn.

"Don't be taken in by photos showing damage to the second floor or those taken after the upper floors collapsed, which happened 20-30 minutes later," Fetzer said. "In fact, debris begins to show up on the completely clean lawn in short order, which might have been dropped from a C-130 that was circling above the Pentagon or placed there by men in suits who were photographed carrying debris with them." The most striking is a piece from the fuselage of a commercial airliner, which is frequently adduced as evidence.

James Hanson, a newspaper reporter who earned his law degree from the University of Michigan College of Law, has traced that debris to an American Airlines 757 that crashed in a rain forest above Cali, Columbia in 1995. "It was the kind of slow-speed crash that would have torn off paneling in this fashion, with no fires, leaving them largely intact." Fetzer has been so impressed with his research he has invited Hanson to submit his study to Scholars for consideration for publication on its web site, 911scholars.org.

"The Pentagon has become a kind of litmus test for rationality in the study of 9/11," Fetzer said. "Those who persist in maintaining that a Boeing 757 hit the building are either unfamiliar with the evidence or cognitively impaired. Unless," he added, "they want to mislead the American people. The evidence is beyond clear and compelling. It places this issue 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon."

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_james_fe_070620_new_study_from_pilot.htm

Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Friday, June 22, 2007 - 11:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yeah,

The super brilliant conspirators let the info out in a FOIA request. Sure.

And, instead of using this plane that they had they used something else. But what happened to the plane?

What about all these men in suits distributing debris, why has nothing leaked? Oh wait they are under government mind control. Why not do it during the evening when it would be less visible? C130 dropping wreckage????????

Face it Monart, the only men in suits needed are the one to take you to a safe little room. You are, in formal term, a wak-a-doodle.

Ethan


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Friday, June 22, 2007 - 12:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oh, and here is another piece of information for you to ingore:

The plane didn't hit the Pentagon in total. It hit the parking lot first and part of it then hit the pentagon. That's why the hole is smaller. But, you'll ingore this too. After all an overwhelming number of links refutes facts right?


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Friday, June 22, 2007 - 12:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Clearly the conspirators flew the 757 in at 500mph but then decided for some reason that would be too big and destructive, so only buzzed the Pentagon at 100 feet. Instead they got a Cessna to crash into the Pentagon exactly 1 second after the 100 foot jetliner fly-by, and took the 757 out to the Bermuda Triangle.

William of Occam would be proud.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Friday, June 22, 2007 - 12:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
How do you think Osama bin Laden got his money in the first place? He's never had to work a day in his life. He's just a worthless spoiled brat, like a lot of the Kennedys and Bushes are.

Actually, I was already perfectly aware that Osama got his money because of his ridiculously wealthy family. Where else would he have gotten it?

And this has what, exactly, to do with other people (who happen to be unfortunate enough to be related to him) leaving the country after the attacks? 

Or do Bushes and Kennedys and any other children of wealthy parents automatically deserve punishment from the government for being worthless spoiled brats?

(For the record:  Paris Hilton actually had to violate THE LAW in order to be put in jail...no matter how much we may secretly enjoy seeing her there.)

Saad bin Laden has also been accused of being involved in other acts of terrorism. An in-law of bin Laden set up Benevolence International Foundation, which may have funnelled charity money to al-Qaida.

Well, that's...conclusive. Not.
A relative of Osama's has been accused. An in-law of Osama's set up a foundation, which MAY have given funds to al-Qaida.

(Cue the Smucker's Jelly commercial music)
...With a name like bin Laden...it has to be terrorist.

Seriously, assuming that the allegations against both the examples you cited are absolutely true...does that mean that the entire (huge) bin Laden clan (at least those present in the U.S.) should not have been allowed to leave the country?

Would you have imprisoned Wafah bin Laden (now Wafah Dufour)?
http://www.rosenblog.com/2005/12/24/bin_laden_niece_in_gq_spread.html

(Of course, she is (no doubt) a rich spoiled brat...uh, never mind. Forget the question.)

I give up.

You conspiracy guys win.

Bush is secretly sleeping with Wafah (who wouldn't?) and helped her help her uncle attack the U.S....or some variation of that, right? 

Okay.

Got it.

Edit: What Ethan and Aaron said.

(Edited by Erica Schulz on 6/22, 12:27pm)


Post 14

Friday, June 22, 2007 - 1:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Chris, as individualists, linking a crime from one individual to others of the same - not to mention remote in this case - family should be anethma to us.

Post 15

Friday, June 22, 2007 - 1:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Conspiracy and Closed Minds on 9/11

Morgan Reynolds
March 15, 2006


While more Americans doubt the 9/11 story every week, evidence abounds that many have a mental block against rational examination of the evidence about 9/11. The possibility that it was an inside job is a non-starter for them. Programmed “cut outs” insure that 9/11 doubts are consigned to the “conspiracy” closet.

Last June I was explaining the fuss over my 9/11 article to a family member who shall remain anonymous and he interrupted and said, “I don’t want to talk about it.” Millions join him in that sentiment. By implication they might as well say: “I’d rather cling to the official 9/11 myth” = “If mass murderers run free, I’m fine with that” = “If 9/11 was an inside job, then I’m ruled by monsters and I might have to do something about it, I’d rather watch Paris Hilton.”

Where does this passive attitude come from? Causes are many but American indoctrination has two sides that figure prominently in the explanation:

• Belief in “American Exceptionalism”
• Disbelief in conspiracy

The first belief massages the American ego that we are heroes, always the good guys in history, and we can trust our government to be the same. The second steers us clear of subversive theories and thwarts connecting the dots. American exceptionalism is Civics 101, the Disneyfication of U.S. history, the “we’re so good” formula, “those stupid romances commonly called history.” Like no other nation in history, we are an unparalleled success, goes the story. With American self-esteem unrivalled, denial about 9/11 is hardly surprising. Conventional wisdom, in effect, says Yes, criminal gangs have ruled in other nations from time to time, perhaps always, but it has never happened here and cannot happen here. Evidence to the contrary is bogus, I do not have to even look at it. For one thing, I vote. We are the world’s greatest duh-mocracy. In fact, I voted for Bush-Cheney (or that other skull-and-bones candidate from Yale, I forget). I am fully invested with the regime and I’m not a criminal or traitor, so Bush-Cheney must not be either. After all, we the people are the government. Criminals and traitors do not look like us either, they look like Arabs, Germans, Japanese, Chinese.

Besides, conspiracy theories are little more than a symptom of a mental disease. Such asinine theories stem from delusion and paranoia, not objective reality. On its face, it is preposterous to believe that the U.S. government would attack its own people. History is about accidents, bungling, lone nuts, chaos and coincidence, not planning, cause-and-effect, execution and cover-ups.

False Flag Terrorism

Americans know a great deal that just is not so. The hidden history of false-flag terrorism is key, followed by trained aversion to conspiracy. When bad things happen on a large scale, chances are that an important group of people wanted them to happen and made them happen.

Governments throughout history have provoked or staged attacks on their own people to serve the powers behind the throne (“the money power”), glorify themselves, engage in vast government spending, reward friends, exert domestic control, stimulate the juices of war, annex neighbors and pursue vast geostrategic rearrangements (the “global domination project”). A few examples:

• Nero burned Rome to blame the Christans A.D. 64
• US provoked Mexican-American war 1846
• USS Maine sinking 1898
• Lusitania sinking 1915
• Reichstag fire 1933
• Hitler’s staged attack on the Gleiwitz radio station 1939
• The “surprise attack” at Pearl Harbor 1941
• Bay of Pigs conspiracy 1961
• Operation Northwoods 1962
• LBJ’s Gulf of Tonkin conspiracy 1964
• Kuwaiti baby incubator hoax 1991
• Bush Jr.’s 9/11, yellow cake and WMD scams

Ruthless though plotters be, the basic principle “is as mundane as insurance fraud,” as Webster G. Tarpley writes (9/11 Synthetic Terror, 2005, p. 104), and nicely illustrated by the obscure hoax that started World War II. Hitler wanted to invade Poland but knew the German majority did not support war, so a group of hapless German convicts was dressed up in Polish army uniforms (by Tarpley’s account, also see these variations), marched to the Gleiwitz radio station, machine gunned to death, arranged as if storming the building, and Nazi agents read an anti-German statement in Polish declaring Polish forces had invaded Gleiwitz and taken over the radio station. With this farce and related border stunts, Hitler invaded Poland the next day, September 1, 1939. “Wag the dog” anyone?

Errors about Conspiracy

Many Americans know that the JFK, RFK, MLK and other assassinations were inside jobs, and Nixon’s Watergate and Reagan’s Iran-Contra are proven conspiracies with criminal convictions. Blatant government murder of U.S. citizens occurred at Waco, Ruby Ridge and the Oklahoma City bombing. Yet fools and liars argue that the scale of 9/11 was too big to be an inside job because it would involve so many people. A conspirator would surely squeal and we would hear about it, goes the argument, and that has not happened.

JFK’s triangulation murder involved hundreds and nobody “ratted” that out in any substantial way, although Jack Ruby was close before he was found dead in his cell and dozens of deaths surrounded the case. Here’s how large, inside conspiracies work:

• Conspiracies—partnerships in crime—are common: a corner drug deal is a conspiracy and one in four federal prosecutions include a conspiracy charge.

• Hundreds rather than thousands probably were necessary to pull off the 9/11 psychological operation.

• Many conspirators are ideologues committed to the idea that the 9/11 hoax would serve the interests of the nation. Worthy ends justify murderous means to this crowd. The human cost of 9/11 turned out to be “only” a month’s highway fatality toll and served the magnificent ends of starting a global war on terror, two invasions and more to come, billions more in defense spending, torture, new agencies, “Patriot” controls, domestic spying, enormous new contracts, more debt and many other attractive consequences.

• Many participants are cunning sociopaths (amoral) with the mindset of stone cold killers. They wear a suit or military uniform but have no respect for the lives of the “little people.” They are ruthless, witness the fool in the White House: “But all in all, it’s been a fabulous year for Laura and me,” a tone-deaf president declared in a December, 2001 interview.

• Only the trustworthy are at the center of the hub-spoke-and-wheel compartmentalization necessary in a complex conspiracy. Only the arrogant few at the hub know the big picture before hand.

• The most secretive regime in U.S. history puts a huge premium on personal loyalty and gets it.

• Most participants did not know in advance how “over-the-top” the twin tower demolitions were going to be. That job probably was contracted out to ruthless foreigners. Once done, it’s too late to get out.

• Any participant would hesitate to squeal after the event because disbelief, disgrace and grief would follow, at a minimum, anyway. The major media, inside 9/11 from the start, would discredit squealers, as necessary.

• Risk-taking behavior is always greater in groups than for lone individuals (psychology 101).

• Once involved in the plot, everyone is “in for good.’

• Conspirators face no threat of arrest, prosecution and punishment by the government’s justice system, a proven fact since government and media obstructed and trashed New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison’s JFK investigation and prosecution.

• Controllers discipline participants through $billions in black budgets and drug money, death threats, assassination and black mail.

• Blatant and repeated resistance against truthful investigations, aided by obstruction of justice and abetted by media silencio, prove there is a lot to hide.

Consider one control technique among many: a very high CIA official died a few years ago and on good authority I know that he had a 7/24 CIA presence to protect against a deathbed confession in front of Hospice personnel. “I’m not into conspiracy theories,” says filmmaker Michael Moore, “only those that are true.”

The fundamental difficulty is not really disbelief about the ability to keep conspiracy secrets but disbelief that U.S. government officials could really collaborate in attacking America and take all those innocent lives at the World Trade Center. This is naďve. First, government is the instrument of social compulsion. Organized force is what government does. The belief that soft-hearted people rise to the top in government is akin to the belief that softies were whipping masters on slave plantations. Second, setting WTC bombs could easily have been contracted out to Mossad, otherwise known as “executioner to the world.” Killing? It’s what we do (because this is “life or death for Israel,” blah, blah). Third, people are taught that they control their government and live in a duh-mocracy but all governments are run by insiders, usually permanent and dominated by the paymasters. When policy or personnel really matter, international bankers call the tune for modern governments daily dependent on them for new loans and refinance of the old. These financiers look out for themselves and believe in a New World Order, a one-government world, and have no allegiance to America or its founding principles. Fourth, the U.S. military oath requires an oath-taker to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” The enemy within the gate is key today, whether called conspiracy or not, not the enemy outside.

Skepticism about conspiracy, small or large, is somewhat beside the point in the case of 9/11 because the official Osama-and-Nineteen-Young-Arabs (ONYA) conspiracy tale is so farcical and impossible. Nearly everyone in America has easy access to the internet and hundreds of websites expose the 9/11 fraud. The analysis is out there and in a few dozen books, although the mainstream media ignores it all. Only government could have pulled off a psy-op this big, not a rag-tag band of Arab incompetents with no visible means of support repeatedly running afoul of law enforcement in the field. All the other intelligence services and governments know the real story about who did 9/11. It is like an elephant in the living room, studiously ignored by insiders who keep quiet about it. After thorough exposure via the Downing Street memo and other irrefutable evidence about the Bush-Cheney lies to justify invading Iraq, it takes a lot to remain ignorant about 9/11. It is not about a conspiracy too large to work. Ignorance increasingly has to be willful.


http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=closed_minds_on_911

Copyright Morgan Reynolds 2006+ unless otherwise specified.
Distribution of and linking to the articles on this website is strongly encouraged, as long as the content is not manipulated or distorted in anyway.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Friday, June 22, 2007 - 4:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Someone needs to check the oxygen level of the Starship...

Post 17

Friday, June 22, 2007 - 11:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nah, Teresa. Someone beamed up a little too much peyote.

Jim


Post 18

Saturday, June 23, 2007 - 5:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Notice how Monart never acknowledges any of the refuting arguments anyone here makes. Irrationality at its best.

Post 19

Saturday, June 23, 2007 - 7:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ethan: Yes, he does avoid them. For post #113 I got no response:
Monart: I haven't been following this thread and don't really want to read all the previous 111 postings, so could you please tell me what your theories are about the plane that went down in the field in Pennsylvania? Was this somehow a hoax or conspiracy that happened in a different manner than we have been lead to believe? Did not the passengers attempt to overpower the hijackers and in so doing cause the plane to crash at a site other than the intended one — allegedly the White House?
Sam

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.